From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Mon May 25 14:07:19 EDT 1992
Article 5858 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: penrose
Message-ID: <27@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 23 May 92 00:23:05 GMT
References: <2524@ucl-cs.uucp> <1992May1.025230.8835@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May6.220605.26774@unixg.ubc.ca> <1992May8.015202.10792@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 14

In article <1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
|Algorithms are fundamentally incomplete.  Turing machines are fundamentally
|incomplete.  Think.

Right, but why assume *human* *thought* is complete (in this sense)?
Is ti really certain that we can *always* jump the rails, so to speak,
and arrive at the truth.

This is what Penrose' argument requires, and I find it extremely unlikely.
-- 
---------------
sarima@teradata.com				(Stanley Friesen)
or
uunet!tdatirv!sarima


